Camera ready in two shakes: Motorola Moto X camera review

Design & Hardware

The Moto X’s camera is built around an unusual sensor. Few digital camera sensors can actually "see" color: they only capture levels of brightness at each pixel. Color is determined by covering each pixel with a red, green, or blue filter, and then interpolating colors from the filtered input. One downside is that light soaked up by the filters is wasted, resulting in lower sensitivity (and more noise at a given sensitivity). The Moto X’s sensor uses a novel filter array with a number of clear (unfiltered) pixels, the "C" in the RGBC sensor designation. In theory, this should produce a higher base sensitivity with a minimal noise penalty and better low-light performance. Indeed, the Moto X’s base sensitivity is ISO 160, the highest we’ve seen in a phone, and at least a full stop faster than most.

Besides the unconventional filter array, those 10 megapixels are on a generously sized 1/2.6-inch sensor. At 1.4 microns, the pixels are larger than the 1.1-micron photosites of the Samsung Galaxy S4, though a little smaller than the iPhone 5s' 1.5 micron pixels. Bigger is better when it comes to pixels, as long as there are enough of them. In theory, this should also give the Moto X a boost in low-light performance.

The Moto X camera features an unusual 1/2.6-inch 10MP sensor with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

Power button and volume rockers are located on the right side of the device.

The sensor’s aspect ratio is, unusually, 16:9. This is the format of most modern screens (including the Moto X and your flat-screen television), but is wider than the far more common 4:3 ratio found in most phones and compact digital cameras. Although entirely a matter of personal taste, few photographers are likely to find the format an ideal fit: it works well for landscapes, but otherwise feels odd if you’re accustomed to composing in a 4:3 or 3:2 (the most common DSLR format) frame. Cropping to 3:2 yields a 9MP image, while 4:3 cuts down to 8MP, but you may have to do that in post, as the included camera app only supports shooting in the native aspect ratio.

The sensor backs an F2.4 lens, which is a half-stop slower than the fastest phone lenses, representing a small but significant disadvantage in low light. For example, lighting and ISO being equal, a handset with an F2.0 lens could use a shutter speed of 1/45 sec when the Moto X used 1/30 sec.

The lens has a roughly 28mm-equivalent field of view. This is fairly standard for phone cameras, which have been trending towards the wide end for some time. Note that the 16:9 sensor means you’ll get less vertical coverage across that wide field of view than with most other cameras.

Viewed from the front, our black Moto X is minimalist, a chrome inset around the earpiece being the only ornamentation. But even from this angle, the soft corners and rounded edges give the phone a comfortable look that’s confirmed when you pick it up. If you like phones flashier than black or white, Motorola offers a remarkably wide range of color and materials options via its Motomaker site. You can separately pick colors for the backing, the buttons and accents, and the front surround. Four real wood backs are also available at extra cost.

The Moto X comes without any ornamentation or logo on its front.

At 10.4mm the Moto X isn't bulky, but many current high-end models are thinner.

The Moto X’s basic photographic ergonomics are decent thanks to the rounded edges and modest size. The backing provides a fair amount of edge grip despite the potential slipperiness of the shiny screen bezel. The camera and flash are center-mounted, nicely away from your fingers. The parade is rained on by the lack of a camera button, and the native camera app doesn’t even support using the volume buttons to take a picture. In any case, they’re not well-positioned to do so.

The Moto-X’s 4.7-inch display lets the handset avoid the gargantuanism manifesting in the Android phone market, which is good news for photographic handling. Though you feel the smaller screen real estate when reviewing images (compared to 5-inch-plus screens), the fact that 16:9 photos fit perfectly on a 16:9 display somewhat offsets this. The 1280 x 720 resolution makes for a pixel density of about 316 ppi. The display isn’t as sharp as full-HD screens that top 400 ppi, but in typical use you’d be hard-pressed to see a difference in sharpness. The screen remains roughly visible in bright sun, but washes out more than some.

I have had a Moto X for several months since going with Republic Wireless. I bought the phone for the service and the camera usage is regular but not critical. It's image output is certainly sufficient for anything other than trying to actually capture images of great technical quality. Use it for Instagram, facebook, email or whatever, but don't expect a responsive, low noise, highly detailed image. I just came across this review and after reading thought to myself; who actually buys a cell phone these days based on the best camera?? Probably a minority of people, but that's my thoughts.

Thought I would follow back on this review. I've now been using the Moto X for a month running Android 4.4.2 (which does provide updates to the camera.)

As this is my first smartphone I cannot say if the results are "good" or "bad" but it's certainly better than my previous phone, a Samsung Intensity. :)

I have found colors to occasionally be inconsistent with the default camera app but not very often. I actually prefer the lower saturation defaults as I can work on the images in post to my liking. HDR mode is pretty great. I leave it set to On 100% of the time.

The aspect ratio is rather strange. Works well for city, landscape, etc shots, but feels odd with portraits.

Overall I'm happy with the photos, especially within the context of them being grab shots or when I really can't carry another camera. As I'm in the newly-minted smartphone owners "group" I'm sure my opinion will evolve over time.

i gave up on moto after 10 years and went w/samsung. moto won't innovate. apple isn't much better. my note3 beats the heck out of all of what's out there.oh yea...these are phones/computers not cameras

I enjoyed the review and, as a Moto X owner, thought you were thorough, accurate and fair in your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses.

I did want to point out, though, that I think you might have been a little bit harsher on the overexposure issues with the Moto X than you were in your Nexus 5 review. For example, look at your caption on page 6 of your Nexus 5 review: "In good light, the Nexus 5 delivers pleasant, balanced images." But the right half of the image is basically overexposed building. You were also a bit more apologetic for the Nexus 5 blowing highlights in the fruit stand still life, saying "Blown highlights remain a constant of mobile photography" rather than "With the Nexus 5, you can expect some blown highlights in high contrast scenes."

For any who read this, and are curious, overall I'm satisfied with the Moto X camera (having come from a Nexus 4 as my last phone). It's got weaknesses but overall it's not too shabby.

The HDR mode really does a great job, I'm very happy with it. But I will also say most of the time I'm editing my photos using Snapseed on my phone. I really like shaking the phone to get the camera. I do wish I had more control in the app or maybe had an advanced mode - like a real camera where you have full auto and the various other modes. That'd be cool. But honestly, most of the photos I take with my phone are quick ones to post on FB or Instagram or places like that. If I REALLY want a good photo I'm using my camera (which is always with me). :) There certainly are better camera phones, and there are worse. I like this phone a lot, have never had any problems.

This photos don't look like 4.4.2 at all. They look like the old software. AT&T is still not on 4.4.2 yet which makes this whole review bunk... No offense, but this camera is ahead of most of the competition now since 4.4.2. You may want to revisit this review after the update.

While you're reviewing oldish phones, is there any chance for an S4 Mini review? I've read reviews for it on other sites, but being that your reviews focus on camera performance, which is probably the main criterion I consider before buying a phone, they have more weight imo, especially since DXO haven't reviewed it either!

Funny, you mention that. I just got one in today and set it up. Planning to do a "Mini" comparison with the HTC One Mini and Sony Xperia Z1 Compact. If possible I'd also like to include the LG G2 Mini but it could take a while before I get that one it seems.

DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.

yes, unfortunately this review got delayed for various reasons which is not ideal. On the other hand the Moto X only got released in Europe a couple of weeks ago. So there are still large parts of the word where it's new. :)

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been using a Moto X for the last 6 months and remains the best overall smartphone I've laid my hands on. I have immediate family member with the HTC One, iPhone 5s, etc. The Moto x speaker is better the the One's despite "Beats", yeah not a popular opinion but I've done the head to head. Moto X is notably smoother and snappier in all tasks than the One, much better reception on then same carrier, better battery life. Frankly, the X is hands down superior to the One in every measurable respect, and with the update to 4.4.2 I would extend that to the camera as well. Did I mention my family member has been through 3 One's in that 6 months while my X operates and looks exactly lime it did the day I got it. Sorry, Motorola has one of the best all around smartphones ever made in the X, HTC still sucks.

Here's something I find puzzling (and slightly irritating): When I consider buying a lens, by far the most important spec is the focal length (and the equivalent focal length with same field of view in 135-format). Why is it so impossibly difficult to find this information for phone cameras? It's as "key" as "key specifications" get. In this case you do find an approximate number if you read the entire review, but in many cases not even that.

equivalent focal length is pretty much never provided in the spec sheet. Once we got a device in our hand we try to figure it out but often not even the manufacturer representatives know the exact number when asked.

On the other hand it's safe to say that the vast majority of phones these days have an equivalent focal length of somewhere around 28-30mm, so no matter what you get it's always gonna be a wide-angle lens. Given they're pretty much all the same you should probably not put too much weight on it in your buying decision :)

"On the other hand it's safe to say that the vast majority of phones these days have an equivalent focal length of somewhere around 28-30mm, so no matter what you get it's always gonna be a wide-angle lens. "

Yup, in stills mode, all contemporary high-end smartphones are between 27 and 30mm, with the exception of the iPhone 5c, which, as with the iPhone 5, has a 33mm lens.

In video mode, however, the differences are much more pronounced because of the lack of oversampling in most (but not all - see Nokia 808 / 1020) smartphones and/or trying to implement image stabilization electronically (except for the Nokia 1020 / 92x, LG G2 and HTC One). On ALL iPhones, the Samsung GS4, the Note 3 etc. the video FoV is far lower because of this - between 36 and 42mm. That is, if one needs WA in video mode as well, he/she shouldn't get any iPhones. The solutions to fix this either involve IQ-degrading external lens adapters or my full sensor oversampler, which only works on the iPhone 5s.

- it also works on almost all other camera-equipped iDevices but, as their camera hardware is way slower than that of the 5s, they aren't capable of shooting at anything over 20 fps in oversampled mode.

- only the 5s is capable of 30p full resolution oversampled shooting, but only in good light. In bad light, the framerate drops.

Note that I have developed another open source video recording tweak, "Video Bitrate Configurer" (see http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1710387 ), which allows for quick video mode switching (between stock modes) and configuring. It doesn't allow for enabling full sensor oversampling

Here is, perhaps, a silly question: Are there 3rd party camera apps that (at the time of exposure) help alleviate any of the cons identified in this review? Apps that help give you better control over exposure or focus?

Peter, who wrote this review says the following: 3rd part apps can offer extra control, but as usual, it's a little hit and miss. FV-5, for example, allows you to control exposure comp, white balance, and focus mode. It also offers semi-functional ISO control, but that part isn't very reliable. The downside with 3rd party apps is that you don't access to device-specific functions like the HDR mode."

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.